Talk:Khorashan of Kartli

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khorashan of Kartli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup and GA Cup participant, I have my own GANs (CMLL World Tag Team Championship and CMLL World Welterweight Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.

I am aware that there is a topic ban for the nominator but I figure if I do the review perhaps other wikipedias will pick it up and get issues resolved. At least we've tried. I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while.  MPJ-US  12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer Review

• Weird that tool was there yesterday, wonder what happened?

Copyright violations Tool

• After checking the one result the tool gave me there is no direct copyright violations Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well Written

• No it's not, may problems outlined below N

• Just referring to her as "Khorashan" it does not even indicate her birth name, I would assume that her last name was "Bagrationi"? Especially since the Commons category links to "Khorashan Bagrationi"? I am not sure why that was left out.

Lead

• "whom she married as his second wife in 1612." - so he had multiple wives at once? first one died? and this is not worded very well. Unless he had multiple wive concurrently you can just strike the "as his second wife" completely. If there were multiple wives reword it along the lines of "whom she married in 1612, becoming his second wife"
• "eventful reign ended with his final overthrow", reading the article he did not have one continuous reign did he? probably reigns
• Should be "ended when he was finally overthrown"

Family background and marriage

• This section jumps right past some details, basically acting like the lead i part of the article (birth date etc.) the article should be written totally independent of the lead, as if it does not exist. It's like jumping past chapter 1 and 2 straight to chapter 3.
• "and, eventually, a saint of the Georgian Orthodox Church." - seems like a side note that does not relate to the subject of the article. I woud eliminate that part,
• "Khorashan had been promised to Baadur, eldest son of the influential Georgian nobleman, Nugzar, Duke of Aragvi, but the girl was given by Luarsab in marriage to a 23-year-old widower, King Teimuraz I of Kakheti, in 1612." - This is a really clunky, over-complicated run-on sentence. It would benetit from being rewritten as 2 sentences.
• "Prince Vakhushti, claims" should be "claimed"

Vicissitudes

• So bad start when I have to google the section header, that's a really bad title - while we don't have to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator we do have to strike a balance, please try to come up with a better title.
• Starting with "thus" it calls back to the previous section as a continuation of that, not it's own section.
• "faithful", "obstinate" - value added words, please choose more neutral words.
• "Twice, in 1625 and again in 1633, was Teimuraz able to briefly extend his rule over Kartli, the kingdom of his brother-in-law, Luarsab, who had been put to death at Shah Abbas's order in 1622." again this would benefit from not being one giant run-on sentence

• "In 1620, when Khorashan was accompanying" = "While Khorashan"

• "In 1620, when Khorashan was accompanying Teimuraz in his journey in the Ottoman Empire during their second exile from Kakheti, Shah Abbas sent a force under the beylerbey of Erivan, Amirgune Khan, to seize Khorashan and her entourage, staying at that time at Olti." Another massive run-on sentence, it is hard to read these and actually get what they are trying to convey.
• "the shah's men attempted her abduction", who is the "her" in question here? Teimuraz's mother or Khorashan? previous sentence mentions his mother but the article is about Khorashan so it's not clear.
• "Capitalizing on Teimuraz's temporary absence from home, the shah's men attempted her abduction, but the besieging Iranian force was stalled until Teimuraz was able to return unexpectedly, putting the intruders to rout." - Again run-on.

Last years

• This is the first time a son is mentioned, as a side note in his death.
• "The latest downfall of Teimuraz, which proved to be permanent, was occasioned by the enthronement of Rostom of Kartli, a pro-Iranian relative of Khorashan." Run-on, should be reworded.
• To really show that his artice is not so much about Khorashan - her death is listed as an aside "and she was dead when he came back"

Sources/verifiable

• Four entries, all books from established publishers
• The "Ancestry" section seems to be totally unsourced? it's not in the text anywhere either. Changing this to fail N

Broad in coverage

• Being so short it's hard to be too broad, a few things

• The section "Family background and marriage" is not really about her, it spends more time explaining the situation, the only thing specifically on the subject of the article is that she was forced to marry someone.
• The section "Vicissitudes" is slightly better, it's still mainly about stuff that goes on around her - except the dream part - everything else she's just a passenger on her husband's journey.
• Section "Last years" - more about her, but it's a short section.

• If she was alive today I am not sure she'd qualify under the WP:GAN, she's the wife of a notable person but does not seem to have done anything notable on her own other than have a dream. The lead states "Diplomacy" and "Catholic missionaries" but those claims are not in the article? It's not broad in coverage, it barely covers the subject N

Netural

• Seems to be Y

Stable

• Nothing in it's short edit history suggests problems Y

Illustrated / Images

• The following images need to have the U.S. Public domain tag on the image file

• "Teimuraz I of Kakhetia.jpg" N

• The Commons category "Khorashan of Kartli" has more images than the one listed, perhaps at least one of those would be appropriate?

General

It is a pretty short article and while that's not a GA restriction it does mean that any issues found would be a proportionally bigger issue. If I find one error in 20 paragraphs that's just 5%, if I find one error in 5 paragraphs that's 20% so to me it really narrows the eye of the needle.

• Being that short I would still think that a GA article should try to aim for 2 paragraphs, WP:LEAD say 1-2 so for GA we'd look for the higher number.
• Is there not an info box for royals, regents or whatever? I would reccomend adding it if there is.
• This links to an empty Commons category that's empty and just redirects, should that not be updated to the actual category?

Final review

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: N

2. Verifiable?: Y

3. Broad in coverage?: N

4. Neutral point of view?: Y

5. Stable?: Y

6. Images?: N

So as stated above a smaller article makes each issue found bigger, and I found plenty of issues in the prose itself. And besides that I am really struggling with the very existence of this article. it's not about Khorashan of Kartli, but more about what went on around her, she was a spectator to most of this, co-incidental to everything that happened, other than the dream.

Based on the GA criteria it is not well written, it is not broad in coverage of the subject. The point of a GA nomination is that it has a GA level of quality at time of nomination or at least being close to it. If these issues are addressed it would be a totally rewritten article compared to the one that was nominated. It is not the purpose of the GA review to provide these vast improvements as part of the process. So I am going to have to fail this.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—  MPJ-US  13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)